Skip to main content

Security report for endsoftpatents.org

Free Software Foundation · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

End Software Patents is a non-profit advocacy initiative operated by the Free Software Foundation, focused on abolishing software patents to protect developer freedom and promote free software principles. The website serves as an educational platform providing resources, campaigns, and calls to action for software developers and advocates. The site is positioned as a niche player within the technology and non-profit sectors, targeting developers and free software supporters globally. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Hestia theme and standard web technologies like Bootstrap and jQuery. While the site is mobile responsive and well-structured, it suffers from slow load times and lacks modern performance optimizations. Security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, exposing visitors to potential risks. Privacy compliance is minimal, with a privacy policy linked only via the parent organization's site and no cookie consent mechanisms. Business credibility is supported by the association with the Free Software Foundation, a reputable non-profit organization with a long domain registration history. Overall, the site is functional and informative but requires significant improvements in security and privacy to enhance trust and user safety.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching endsoftpatents.org

This scan found 20 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
50
Security headers
55
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
43
Average
55

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The website operates under the Free Software Foundation umbrella, leveraging its reputation and resources to advocate against software patents. Its business model is advocacy and education, relying on donations and community support. The target audience includes software developers, free software advocates, and policy influencers. The site maintains a consistent brand aligned with the FSF's mission and uses GPL licensing for its codebase. Market positioning is specialized, focusing on software patent reform, which limits direct competition but also narrows its audience. The lack of direct contact information and limited marketing tools suggests a low emphasis on commercial growth, consistent with its non-profit status. Partnerships are primarily internal within the FSF ecosystem. Growth indicators are not evident from the site content, but the mature domain age and ongoing blog updates indicate sustained activity.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is currently weak. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical vulnerability that undermines user trust and exposes data to interception. No security headers or advanced TLS protocols are implemented, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are publicly available. The site does not employ cookie consent mechanisms or privacy-enhancing technologies. While no active vulnerabilities or malware were detected, the lack of basic security controls is a significant risk. The site should prioritize obtaining a valid SSL certificate, enabling HTTPS, and implementing standard security headers. Additionally, publishing security policies and establishing incident response contacts would improve transparency and preparedness.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add a cookie policy and consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact information including security incident response contacts.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and update all third-party components to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature WordPress platform using the Hestia theme and standard libraries like jQuery and Bootstrap. The infrastructure appears stable but lacks modern performance optimizations, resulting in slow page load times (12.8 seconds) and a large page size (~241 KB). Mobile responsiveness is good, but accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic. The site does not use advanced analytics or marketing tools, indicating a focus on content delivery rather than commercial engagement. Hosting details are limited, but DNS records show stable name servers affiliated with GNU.org. The lack of SSL and modern TLS protocols is a critical technical deficiency. Overall, the technical stack is functional but requires modernization and security enhancements to improve user experience and trust.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with endsoftpatents.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review endsoftpatents.org.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.